[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Bowzer spirey, on 13 February 2017 - 10:11 AM, said:

Don't know anybody who doesn't rate Sam Hird. He is easily our best player by a country mile.

IF the rumour is true about contract extension , then I can only assume he is too expensive for Division 2

I'd guess it's not a case of being too expensive for Div 2, but too expensive for a club where the budget's being decimated.

[Yenx]

The most telling thing here is that had this rumour for benching Sam Hird been found to be true, no one would have any difficulty in believing it of the current regime.

[DIFH]

MDCCCLXVI, on 13 February 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

I'd guess it's not a case of being too expensive for Div 2, but too expensive for a club where the budget's being decimated.

The next 2 games should add fuel to this fire then.

[JonB]

One thing to add which may have been mentioned on the thread already...if the rumour is true and his next appearance triggers stuff why was he on the bench? Surely if he came on then it then happen anyway.

[dim view]

Yenx, on 13 February 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

The most telling thing here is that had this rumour for benching Sam Hird been found to be true, no one would have any difficulty in believing it of the current regime.

People have got to face the fact that he wasn't on the bench because of the contractual situation. He was on the bench either because he's not 90 minute fit, or because the manager preferred other options.

What I've been told, which might not be 100% accurate, is that the manager will have the additional complication of the contractual situation kicking in when we have 15 games left to play, ie he can play tomorrow night.

After that he won't get picked unless he negotiates a waiver. Which is precisely what he should do as the worst case scenario for everybody is that he's sitting on his ass for the rest of the season.

Looking at it impersonally, it's a poor deal for CFC that should never have been agreed.

[cfc_scott]

If anyone picks anderson or evo over 'footballing' reasons, they need there head looking at.

[moondog]

dim view, on 13 February 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

People have got to face the fact that he wasn't on the bench because of the contractual situation. He was on the bench either because he's not 90 minute fit, or because the manager preferred other options.

What I've been told, which might not be 100% accurate, is that the manager will have the additional complication of the contractual situation kicking in when we have 15 games left to play, ie he can play tomorrow night.

After that he won't get picked unless he negotiates a waiver. Which is precisely what he should do as the worst case scenario for everybody is that he's sitting on his ass for the rest of the season.

Looking at it impersonally, it's a poor deal for CFC that should never have been agreed.

Another Saunders legacy

http://www.skysports...at-chesterfield



Spireites boss Dean Saunders said: "I offered him a deal when I was at Doncaster and he opted to join Chesterfield so I'm pleased to have been successful this time.

"Sam is a good player with a great attitude and it is great news for the club that he has decided to stay."

[Waller is my hero]

Well if we are not playing our consistently best player because of the risk of extending, then I wouldn't blame Hird to sign a pre contract elsewhere!
He has been loyal, very loyal, when he could have gone elsewhere.
If this true, then it's a kick in the teeth & yet another two fingers up to the fans

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

dim view, on 13 February 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

People have got to face the fact that he wasn't on the bench because of the contractual situation. He was on the bench either because he's not 90 minute fit, or because the manager preferred other options.

What I've been told, which might not be 100% accurate, is that the manager will have the additional complication of the contractual situation kicking in when we have 15 games left to play, ie he can play tomorrow night.

After that he won't get picked unless he negotiates a waiver. Which is precisely what he should do as the worst case scenario for everybody is that he's sitting on his ass for the rest of the season.

Looking at it impersonally, it's a poor deal for CFC that should never have been agreed.

If we don't want to offer him a contract and don't want to play him, then we should have off loaded him in the window, or is that to sensible

[h again]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 13 February 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

If we don't want to offer him a contract and don't want to play him, then we should have off loaded him in the window, or is that to sensible

Very sensible - who wanted him?

[azul]

h again, on 13 February 2017 - 10:18 PM, said:

Very sensible - who wanted him?

Someone wanted O'Neil and Liddle so I guess someone would've wanted Hird in the window. In the worst scenario he would've been ripe for paying off and would have been snapped up in a minute as a free agent.

So unless someone at the club suddenly realised the situation after the window closed, I can't see this reason for not playing is true.

[Lincs Spireite]

MDCCCLXVI, on 13 February 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

I'd guess it's not a case of being too expensive for Div 2, but too expensive for a club where the budget's being decimated.

Reminds me of an old saying that starts, if you pay peanuts .

Why am I not surprised it was a Saunders negotiated deal, just don't get me started about that muppet.

This post has been edited by Bowzer spirey: 13 February 2017 - 10:38 PM

[Tha Knows...]

azul, on 13 February 2017 - 10:32 PM, said:

Someone wanted O'Neil and Liddle so I guess someone would've wanted Hird in the window. In the worst scenario he would've been ripe for paying off and would have been snapped up in a minute as a free agent.

So unless someone at the club suddenly realised the situation after the window closed, I can't see this reason for not playing is true.

It wouldn't be surprising if they had only just realised his contract situation

[Stockholm Spireite]

Bowzer spirey, on 13 February 2017 - 10:35 PM, said:

Reminds me of an old saying that starts, if you pay peanuts .

Why am I not surprised it was a Saunders negotiated deal, just don't get me started about that muppet.

Just how many times has Sam always been there for the club? He's a model pro and an excellent clubman. Cookie arrives and doesn't like him; so he rolls his sleeves up and makes himself almost 'undropable'. RB, CB, DM - it doesn't matter, he always plays for the shirt and plays like he wants to wear it one more time. Granted, he's made mistakes, but so has every other player as well. Does the new gaffer just not fancy Sam in his team? Flip a coin, I guess...

I think we need to be careful is labelling this as another "Saunders failure". DS wanted to keep him around, but contract negotiations seem to be distanced from managers nowadays. We're discussing the possibility of a clause existing in his contract that would have to be agreed by someone higher than Deanosaurus... aren't things like this handled by CEO's or Directors of Football?

Somebody wouldn't knowingly agree to a clause that could well be met and exert further pressure on an already tight budget, would they? That would be like signing off on bonuses for a competition - let's say the JPT - where winning it would actually cost the club money. Nobody with even just a basic grasp of numbers would ever agree to that, unless they were an absolute clown, would they?

[azul]

Spire-Power, on 13 February 2017 - 10:39 PM, said:

It wouldn't be surprising if they had only just realised his contract situation

How can this be?

We now have a dedicated person looking after the contracts!

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Stockholm Spireite, on 13 February 2017 - 11:24 PM, said:

Just how many times has Sam always been there for the club? He's a model pro and an excellent clubman. Cookie arrives and doesn't like him; so he rolls his sleeves up and makes himself almost 'undropable'. RB, CB, DM - it doesn't matter, he always plays for the shirt and plays like he wants to wear it one more time. Granted, he's made mistakes, but so has every other player as well. Does the new gaffer just not fancy Sam in his team? Flip a coin, I guess...

I think we need to be careful is labelling this as another "Saunders failure". DS wanted to keep him around, but contract negotiations seem to be distanced from managers nowadays. We're discussing the possibility of a clause existing in his contract that would have to be agreed by someone higher than Deanosaurus... aren't things like this handled by CEO's or Directors of Football?

Somebody wouldn't knowingly agree to a clause that could well be met and exert further pressure on an already tight budget, would they? That would be like signing off on bonuses for a competition - let's say the JPT - where winning it would actually cost the club money. Nobody with even just a basic grasp of numbers would ever agree to that, unless they were an absolute clown, would they?

Good post.

I'll say it again; Sam Hird is the kind of honest and trustworthy professional you'd like to see populating our Club.

A fact recognised by numerous Town fans at successive POTY awards.

Your term 'absolute clown' is the best we might say of someone criticising him yet saying squat against folk who're anything but honest and trustworthy.

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 14 February 2017 - 10:52 AM

[Sammy Spireite]

Other clubs seem perfectly happy to confirm such clauses:

http://www.bbc.com/s...otball/38968606

[Essex_Spireite]

If Hird does not start tonight then we have our answer. Either Caldwell is a completely poor judge of players' ability or there is a clause in his contract regarding a payment.

Sam Hird Should be the first name on the team sheet - especially if GC keeps going down the route of playing 3 at the back. A back 3 of Donohue, Evatt and Anderson equals one thing and that begins in R and ends in elegation.

[Paul Fisher]

Do you not think we are relegated already? I've seen nothing to convince me that we aren't going down. We need to win AT LEAST 8 matches to get to 50 points and still that might not be enough. We only have 16 games left. We've won 7 all season.

I appreciate this is hindsight now but the club should have shook hands with DW in the summer and said thanks for keeping us up (less likely option) or sacked him in December after the Wycombe farce. The board then blundered along following the AGM more concerned about trying to save face then look at the on the field picture that had been presented to them (of their own doing I will add).

This and last season have been utterly embarrassing for the supporters and most of it has been shameful. To be honest why Gary Caldwell took the job along with his predecessor, I'll never know. I wouldn't work for this board, they are stripping this club apart and have consently failed to get the debt under control and now the supporters are paying the price, no-one else.

[hilly81]

Darcy Sarto, on 14 February 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

Do you not think we are relegated already? I've seen nothing to convince me that we aren't going down. We need to win AT LEAST 8 matches to get to 50 points and still that might not be enough. We only have 16 games left. We've won 7 all season.

I appreciate this is hindsight now but the club should have shook hands with DW in the summer and said thanks for keeping us up (less likely option) or sacked him in December after the Wycombe farce. The board then blundered along following the AGM more concerned about trying to save face then look at the on the field picture that had been presented to them (of their own doing I will add).

This and last season have been utterly embarrassing for the supporters and most of it has been shameful. To be honest why Gary Caldwell took the job along with his predecessor, I'll never know. I wouldn't work for this board, they are stripping this club apart and have consently failed to get the debt under control and now the supporters are paying the price, no-one else.

Oh, we're down! We need to win 50% of our remaining games. Our current win % stands at 23%. No chance we are turning that round.